Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Use "no participation" links when linking to other subreddits.

Please use np.reddit.com links if you wish to link threads found on /r/politics to an outside subreddit. More Info.

Your title should be comprised only of the copied and pasted headline of the article and/or exact quotes. The selection of quotes should reflect the article as a whole. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

Self-Posts are allowed on Saturdays.

Self posts must adhere to our on topic statement.. Meta posts (posts about /r/Politics and not the topic of politics) are not allowed. Please message the mods with your feedback about the subreddit. More Info.

It's not ad money that they're struggling to keep. Local channels get payments from cable companies that carry them, thus boosting their revenue. The boost is smaller than that for cable-only channels.

The hook is that cable subscribers get a clearer picture than they would over the air. Or, more accurately in the digital broadcast age, a transmission that doesn't freeze or glitch. Aereo has found a way to circumvent copyright and patent laws to provide a continuous, glitch-free stream to subscribers without their going through the cable company.

Meanwhile, FOX can't do the obvious and accept revenue from Aereo due to contractual obligations. So, their answer is to yank their channels off the air to amp up their subscription revenue (since they would then be cable-only).

There are numerous looming problems with this move that is obviously the result of misguided greed. It will bite them in the ass in the end if they do it. There is already a cable-only non-news FOX channel, FX. By moving local channels to cable, FOX will withdraw from over-the-air broadcasting altogether. This also means that they will be the only syndicated network without a presence among antenna-based viewers.

The concerns about Hulu and other streaming services merely reflect a pattern. FOX has some of the most-watched shows on Hulu but also some of the most ridiculous restrictions. For example, episodes of The Simpsons are pulled in random order and even getting a paid subscription to Hulu (thus contributing to FOX revenue) doesn't get one around that arbitrary limitation. Their cable channel has been neglected almost entirely.

In the end, they will only succeed in cutting Internet viewers, airwave viewers, and in the end, cable viewers who have since been exposed to other networks more often. They will only salvage their elderly viewer base; people who only change their television's channel twice a week.

Why do they do this? "Screw the Internet viewers. They're pirates. Screw the airwave viewers. They're poor. Screw the channel surfers. They're disloyal." Who do they have left?

Were the big shots at FOX wise then they'd further diversify their broadcast portfolio, not consolidate it during their broadcast boom. But apparently common sense Business 101 stuff doesn't apply to them. That's why they were a constantly-failing company until 9/11 bolstered their presence via news broadcasts and it's why they'll be a constantly-failing company again.

If I had any relevant stock then the potential move described in this article would prompt me to sell. Luckily, I never invest in entities that I despise.

edit: Come to think of it, this has to be a bluff. They simply can't be that crass and foolish. I'd wager they have some information about Aereo investors that suggests they also hold interest in the various FOX channels, and they're creating a false dilemma out of desperation. Like I mentioned, this group would give anything to cling to the antiquated model for as long as possible despite all uncertainty in new media having long since been relieved. They don't research and consider decisions. They simply follow tried and true patterns thoughtlessly.